What the WC's handling of Hosty's P. Parade note proves

[Alan Ford]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

How do you guys know that Hosty's comment about Oswald going out to watch the P. Parade was never submitted to the FBI?

 

Sorry for the confusion, Mr. Larsen: my "Exactly!" in response to Mr. Speer's point lacked nuance. Agent Hosty's draft report was (as far as we know) never submitted formally by him to (i.e. within) the FBI, and it was certainly never submitted to the WC.

Now it is possible he did dictate this report----------------it looks written up in a sentential form ready to be dictated------------------only for it to be subsequently switched out for the 'improved' joint report with Agent Bookhout. Whether or not that happened, we can be sure that a call was made (perhaps with Agent Hosty's reluctant buy-in) to suppress Mr. Oswald's actual claims relating to his movements and whereabouts before and at the time of the P. Parade.

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Sorry for the confusion, Mr. Larsen: my "Exactly!" in response to Mr. Speer's point lacked nuance. Agent Hosty's draft report was (as far as we know) never submitted formally by him to (i.e. within) the FBI, and it was certainly never submitted to the WC.

Now it is possible he did dictate this report----------------it looks written up in a sentential form ready to be dictated------------------only for it to be subsequently switched out for the 'improved' joint report with Agent Bookhout. Whether or not that happened, we can be sure that a call was made (perhaps with Agent Hosty's reluctant buy-in) to suppress Mr. Oswald's actual claims relating to his movements and whereabouts before and at the time of the P. Parade.

 

Isn't it even possible that Hosty's P. Parade comment appeared in an early FBI report, only to be altered at a later date and the original destroyed?

Maybe that's what you said.

It seems to me that what would have taken place is that those who attended the interrogation took handwritten notes during the interrogation. (Otherwise, how could they remember so much material?) And then later type up their individual reports, using their handwritten notes to remind them what Oswald said. Then later someone would have compiled the reports to form the completed report.

Somewhere along the line, the P. Parade part could have been removed.... even if it were not until the report was completed.

Pat Speer speaks as though he knows for sure that Hosty wrote the P. Parade part sometime later, after the completed report. And I guess Pat thinks that Hosty remembered that part incorrectly... given that Pat thinks that Oswald never said what Hosty said he did.

 

[Marcus Fuller]

I think a lot of the things like Hosty's notes were likely legit, at least the notes, statements etc that came out early on or that were not released 'officially' back then. It seems like the more fakery that was involved (rifle order form etc) the harder the Feds worked in gathering or creating the evidence. 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Marcus Fuller said:

I think a lot of the things like Hosty's notes were likely legit, at least the notes, statements etc that came out early on or that were not released 'officially' back then. It seems like the more fakery that was involved (rifle order form etc) the harder the Feds worked in gathering or creating the evidence. 

 

Exactly.

Though I think that CTers have to admit that some of the rifle evidence came out pretty fast. I do believe that it was faked, but I'd like to see a timeline for when each piece of evidence for the rifle acquisition was produced.

 

[Pat Speer]

18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Isn't it even possible that Hosty's P. Parade comment appeared in an early FBI report, only to be altered at a later date and the original destroyed?

Maybe that's what you said.

It seems to me that what would have taken place is that those who attended the interrogation took handwritten notes during the interrogation. (Otherwise, how could they remember so much material?) And then later type up their individual reports, using their handwritten notes to remind them what Oswald said. Then later someone would have compiled the reports to form the completed report.

Somewhere along the line, the P. Parade part could have been removed.... even if it were not until the report was completed.

Pat Speer speaks as though he knows for sure that Hosty wrote the P. Parade part sometime later, after the completed report. And I guess Pat thinks that Hosty remembered that part incorrectly... given that Pat thinks that Oswald never said what Hosty said he did.

 

What??? The Hosty "notes" are not notes taken down during the interview, as originally claimed, but an outline for a report he never wrote, was never submitted, or was submitted but then rejected. As his name was thrown on the Bookhout report, it seems possible, even, that he wrote the report, but that it was rejected after Bookhout or someone else said "Wait a sec! That makes it sound like Oswald said he was outside" or some such thing. As no one else at the interview said anything about Oswald's claiming he was outside, and as Oswald was given plenty of opportunity but never told his family or the press he'd been outside, it seems likely moreover that this report's failure to appear or disappearance was more of a housecleaning job, as opposed to a cover-up job.

Or maybe Hosty just never got a round to finishing it and Bookhout said "Just put your name on this one." We'll never know. 

As far as the timing, as the outline appears to have been written as an outline for a report, it seems likely it was created within a day or two of the shooting. Maybe Hosty started it the next day, and then scrapped it after Oswald's murder. We'll never know. 

[David Von Pein]

25 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The Hosty "notes" are not notes taken down during the interview, as originally claimed, but an outline for a report he never wrote, was never submitted, or was submitted but then rejected.

How can you know such a thing? Is it because the notes are written on the back of an affidavit form?

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

"Hosty Notes" Addendum.....

I don't think the words "Presidential Parade" came out of the mouth of Lee Harvey Oswald at all. Based on all of the official FINAL reports (from Fritz, Bookhout, Hosty, and Kelley), I think the words "P. Parade" that appear in the "new" Hosty note were probably HOSTY'S words and HOSTY'S interpretation of Oswald's "out with Bill Shelley" statement. Otherwise, we'd have a lot more reports (and notes) that had the word "Parade" in them.

More....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html

 

Edited December 11, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

8 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

How can you know such a thing? Is it because the notes are written on the back of an affidavit form?

 

 

 

If you read Hosty's testimony he mentions that he doesn't write in sentences when taking notes. In point of fact, almost no one does. So it follows that this was a draft, and not notes. He published his notes, moreover, in his book, and it was as you would expect...words and fragments. 

[Miles Massicotte]

In Hosty's Assignment Oswald:

"I decided nonetheless, that I would remain at the police station. Just because I couldn’t talk to the police didn’t mean I couldn’t learn things from them. I headed back to Fritz’s office, where I knew the police were keeping Oswald’s personal belongings. Nothing there, but in the second inner office, which belonged to Lieutenant Walter Potts, I spotted Oswald’s things, which had been removed from his person and from his apartment at the Oak Cliff rooming house. Among the items on Potts’s desk was Oswald’s black address book. I pulled out my pad of blank police affidavit forms and started transcribing the entries in his book, thinking I might find some interesting leads or even some possible co-conspirators."

Hosty was at least contemporanously taking notes on Oswald on the backs of affidavit forms right after his interrogation. Does this not also strongly imply that the P. Parade "Hosty Notes" were also written around the same time? 

[Pat Speer]

Just now, Miles Massicotte said:

In Hosty's Assignment Oswald:

"I decided nonetheless, that I would remain at the police station. Just because I couldn’t talk to the police didn’t mean I couldn’t learn things from them. I headed back to Fritz’s office, where I knew the police were keeping Oswald’s personal belongings. Nothing there, but in the second inner office, which belonged to Lieutenant Walter Potts, I spotted Oswald’s things, which had been removed from his person and from his apartment at the Oak Cliff rooming house. Among the items on Potts’s desk was Oswald’s black address book. I pulled out my pad of blank police affidavit forms and started transcribing the entries in his book, thinking I might find some interesting leads or even some possible co-conspirators."

Hosty was at least contemporanously taking notes on Oswald on the backs of affidavit forms right after his interrogation. Does this not also strongly imply that the P. Parade "Hosty Notes" were also written around the same time? 

Good find. Was this on the evening of the 22nd, or on the 23rd? In either case, he says he pulled out his pad...so this was a pad he kept on his person, So he could have worked on it at the station, or later on at home. 

[Miles Massicotte]

4 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Good find. Was this on the evening of the 22nd, or on the 23rd? In either case, he says he pulled out his pad...so this was a pad he kept on his person, So he could have worked on it at the station, or later on at home. 

I can't take credit for the find, I read it first in Kamp's new book and then went back and read the relevant section of Assignment: Oswald. Hosty specifically dates that recollection to 4:25pm on 11/22.

[David Von Pein]

12 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

If you read Hosty's testimony he mentions that he doesn't write in sentences when taking notes. In point of fact, almost no one does. So it follows that this was a draft, and not notes. He published his notes, moreover, in his book, and it was as you would expect...words and fragments. 

OK. That sounds reasonable. Thanks.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Yes, I'm sure it's true that Hosty et. al. would have taken notes at the interrogation that were not in complete sentences. But afterward they surely would have each written their own report in complete sentences.

After doing so, it would make sense that multiple reports be complied into one final report.

The P. Parade comment could have been removed at any time after Hosty wrote his report in complete sentences.

 

[Alan Ford]

• 'Hey, maybe the 'Hosty draft report' isn't in Hosty's handwriting, maybe it's a hoax...............'
• 'Hey, maybe P. Parade means Post-Parade.............'
• 'Hey, maybe Hosty was cognitively impaired on 11/22 and totally misunderstood what LHO was saying...............'
• 'Hey, maybe Hosty wasn't that interested in the question of LHO's whereabouts at the time of the assassination................'
• 'Hey, maybe LHO's claim he went outside was suppressed because the authorities knew his claim was false..............'
• 'Hey, whatever "Then went outside to watch P. Parade" means, we can rule out its meaning "Then went outside to watch P. Parade"'

The 'Nothing To See Here' gaslighting nonsense which the Hosty draft report has elicited from Team Keep LHO Away From Dem Steps since 2019 has been quite something!

What's next? 'Hey, maybe the "Then" in that line really reads "They": "They went outside to watch P. Parade", and so LHO is talking about his co-workers and stressing the fact that he stayed inside. Yup, that's it!'

The simple fact is that Mr. Kamp's unearthing of this document was and is too great a contribution to our understanding of the case for some folks to handle.

And what do ALL the irrational naysayers have in common? That's right-------------------------not a one of them can offer an innocent explanation for the ridiculous 'shadow' down Mr. Lovelady in Wiegman.

It is to laugh.

 

 

Edited December 23, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

• 'Hey, maybe the 'Hosty draft report' isn't in Hosty's handwriting, maybe it's a hoax...............'
• 'Hey, maybe P. Parade means Post-Parade.............'
• 'Hey, maybe Hosty was cognitively impaired on 11/22 and totally misunderstood what LHO was saying...............'
• 'Hey, maybe Hosty wasn't that interested in the question of LHO's whereabouts at the time of the assassination................'
• 'Hey, maybe LHO's claim he went outside was suppressed because the authorities knew his claim was false..............'
• 'Hey, whatever "Then went outside to watch P. Parade" means, we can rule out its meaning "Then went outside to watch P. Parade"'

The 'Nothing To See Here' gaslighting nonsense which the Hosty draft report has elicited from Team Keep LHO Away From Dem Steps since 2019 has been quite something!

What's next? 'Hey, maybe the "Then" in that line really reads "They": "They went outside to watch P. Parade", and so LHO is talking about his co-workers and stressing the fact that he stayed inside. Yup, that's it!'

The simple fact is that Mr. Kamp's unearthing of this document was and is too great a contribution to our understanding of the case for some folks to handle.

And what do ALL the irrational naysayers have in common? That's right-------------------------not a one of them can offer an innocent explanation for the ridiculous 'shadow' down Mr. Lovelady in Wiegman.

It is to laugh.

 

 

Actually the inverse is true. The desperation with which certain people cling to prayer man etc is far more cringeworthy. Having spent time with FBI agents, I know it to be entirely possible Hosty misunderstood or misremembered something Oswald said, or worded it incorrectly in the draft of a report. But it remains possible Oswald did indeed say he was outside, and that there was a cover-up after he said this. Possible, but not likely.

Consider...one possibility has one man recollecting something incorrectly OR jotting it down incorrectly in a draft of a report. While the other possibility has numerous people, including this man, engaging in a cover-up for decades. Hmmm... Most people would assume the first possibility is more likely, but some people not only assume the second possibility is more likely, they claim it as a fact. What? 

I've been watching the growth of the prayer man cult since it was a baby. And it all comes down to that blurry film frame, doesn't it?

 

Pareidolia (/ˌpærɪˈdoʊliə, ˌpɛər-/;^[1] also US: /ˌpɛəraɪ-/)^[2] is the tendency for perception to impose a meaningful interpretation on a nebulous stimulus, usually visual, so that one sees an object, pattern, or meaning where there is none. It is a type of apophenia.

Common examples are perceived images of animals, faces, or objects in cloud formations, seeing faces in inanimate objects, or lunar pareidolia like the Man in the Moon or the Moon rabbit. The concept of pareidolia may extend to include hidden messages in recorded music played in reverse or at higher- or lower-than-normal speeds, and hearing voices (mainly indistinct) or music in random noise, such as that produced by air conditioners or fans.^[3][4]

Edited December 24, 2023 by Pat Speer